Pacific Lumber Co. v. Moffat
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. The Pacific Lumber Company, plaintiff in error, and plaintiff below, is a California corporation engaged extensively in the manufacture and sale of redwood lumber and shingles, and during the year 1897 had made large sales of such products to the Chicago Lumber Company of Denver, which at the end of January, 1898, was indebted to the plaintiff in about the sum of $2,-700. On January 31, 1898,…
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. The Pacific Lumber Company, plaintiff in error, and plaintiff below, is a California corporation engaged extensively in the manufacture and sale of redwood lumber and shingles, and during the year 1897 had made large sales of such products to the Chicago Lumber Company of Denver, which at the end of January, 1898, was indebted to the plaintiff in about the sum of $2,-700. On January 31, 1898, the Chicago Lumber Company, having become insolvent, to provide for the payment of its indebtedness to a Denver bank of…
1Opinion of the Court
LOCHREN, District Judge,
after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court. ■
The order by Vreeland, as agent of defendant, upon plaintiff for 90 car loads of shingles at prices 20 cents per thousand above the then market prices, and the acceptance of the order by McDonald as plaintiff’s agent, was the means then devised and adopted by those two persons purposely to defraud the defendant by causing him to pay the indebtedness of about $2,700 then owing to plaintiff by the insolvent Chicago Lumber Company, in which debt the defendant had no concern. Vreeland’s authority as…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commissioners of Marion County v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ricker Nat. Bank v. StoneSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Chickasha Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909